Miami Judge Mavel Ruiz Clears Transfer Of Miami Dade College Land For Trump Library

A judge in Miami authorized the transfer of a valuable downtown property owned by Miami Dade College for the construction of Donald Trump’s presidential library, rejecting a lawsuit that alleged the university violated Florida state law when its trustees initially voted to cede Biscayne Boulevard parking to the state.

“Litigation Print Share To: A group of Florida residents hit the Trump administration with a lawsuit claiming he’s been unlawfully gifted valuable land to use for his presidential library”

Bloomberg Law News

The decision allows the Trump foundation to advance plans for a high-rise project adjacent to the Freedom Tower with $1,000 million it plans to raise during the next three years while Trump is still in office.

Bloomberg Law News

Circuit Judge Mavel Ruiz issued two rulings on Thursday, including one lifting a temporary block that had prevented the university from transferring the land and another dismissing the underlying case about public transparency.

Ruiz said the university notified the public properly about a second vote held earlier this month, stating, “This tribunal considers that the new notification complies with the Ley de Transparencia de Florida.”

The Miami Herald reported that Ruiz also praised Marvin Dunn and noted he was willing to pay a bond of $150,000, after Dunn sued the university alleging the initial vote violated Florida public transparency laws.

As the library project moved forward, a group of Miami residents sued to stop the presidential library from occupying prime waterfront property, arguing Florida officials violated the Constitution when they transferred the downtown land for the library.

NBC News said the lawsuit argues the Emoluments Clause bars sitting presidents from accepting gifts or advantages from any state beyond their fixed salary, and it quoted the complaint’s description of the “Domestic Emoluments Clause” as ensuring the President’s “undivided loyalty to the interests of the American nation as a whole.”

CNN

The plaintiffs named President Donald Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Miami Dade College and its board of trustees, and officials on the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund as defendants.

CNN reported that DeSantis and other state officials moved last September to donate 2.63 acres of state-owned land in downtown Miami to the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Foundation, Inc., and that the land was valued by the local property appraiser at about $63 million.

In a statement to CNN, White House spokesman Davis Ingle defended the project without addressing the Emoluments Clause arguments, saying the library would be “one of the most magnificent buildings in the world and a living testament to the indelible impact” of Trump.

The lawsuits center on whether the land transfer amounts to an illegal benefit under the Domestic Emoluments Clause, with CNN saying the plaintiffs argue the statements and plans “make clear that President Trump intends to monetize this skyscraper, generating significant profit for himself and his family.”

USA Today reported that a May 13 lawsuit accused Trump and Ron DeSantis of violating the Constitution through a gift of high-value Miami real estate, and it said the terms of the donation require the land to contain “components of a Presidential library, museum, and/or center.”

USA Today also cited the lawsuit’s claim that the property could be worth at least $360 million, while the Miami-Dade County property appraiser valued the land at more than $67 million.

The Miami Herald described the deed restriction as limiting the transfer to “components” of a presidential library or museum constructed within the next five years, while Trump indicated he plans to build a commercial hotel on site.

In the same reporting, the Miami Herald said the lawsuit is asking a federal judge to declare “null and void the land transaction that resulted in the Domestic Emoluments Clause violation,” framing the legal fight as a direct challenge to the transaction’s validity.